The First Housewife?
April 2, 2009
If I have to read one more story about Michelle Obama’s toned arms, or what outfit she decided to wear, I’m going to vomit all over this computer. Really, CNN? (And every other media outlet, it seems). In 2009? This historic first lady, with all that she’s accomplished, is reduced to whether she went sleeveless? Is she a movie starlet or someone the leader of the free world respects and admires?
Her cover of Vogue was beautiful and inspiring, and I totally root for women who embody wisdom and grace. The article was a good read, respectful and informative, but largely about style. That’s certainly what I want to read about in Vogue, but why can’t she be on the cover of Vanity Fair or Time?
Everyone is up in arms (pun intended) about Michelle Obama’s behavior in London. She touched the Queen! Gasp! She wore a cardigan, probably to spite us! How dare she be so rebellious?!
If those insignificant decisions are the only way she can distinguish herself, then I commend her attitude… but not before I impale myself with a sharp object.
As a side note to anyone who cares about etiquette, and I do:
I don’t think you are supposed to bare your arms in a palace (much like a formal church), so Mrs. Obama was probably being tasteful. Unfortunately our idiot media took it personally. I’ve also heard that the rule with the Queen is that if she touches you first, you are allowed to reciprocate (in this case it was more than a handshake, but I mean, really, you don’t think Michelle Obama was prepped like, 900 times on how to address the Queen?!)
So when Michelle Obama had the ear of two very important British leaders (even if just symbolically), what did they talk about? I can’t tell you, because no one in a newsroom seems to care. Those who work in the news will say this is driven by public interest, and they are just feeding their market. At worst, there could be some kind of insidious gag order on her (as though the White House would rather we pay attention to her appearance because that’s safe). Whatever the reasons, not much has changed since Queen Elizabeth was coronated in 1953.
While the men retired to the G20 summit, here’s what the womenfolk did:
But seriously, the First Lady has a lot to say, why is no one listening????
The First Housewife, funny.
Again very on point, is no one listening or no one asking? Or rather asking questions that are of little importance on the global scale. Having a bachelors in Sociology from Princeton and a JD from Harvard, one would figure that she has something of substance to say. Maybe that is the issue, the media does not feel qualified to ask intelligible questions to such a diverse and well educated woman. Or maybe it is the fact that woman are still stereotyped as the presidential first lady and the status quo laid before her. The path she is trail blazing is hard to swallow for some and it is far easier to comment on her attire than her thoughts on current affairs. And yes, sadly there could be a gag order to direct the public attention to less pressing affairs. According to my small independent poll through conversation I found that the public in general was just as intrigued by her, if not more, than her husband.
I am sure she was prepped, over prepped. Knowing that the public eye would be watching her every move. Touching the queen, I watched the video and it sure looked like she was genuine with her action. I am not sure if I were in the same position, something I will probably not achieve and cannot be understated, that I would not want to give the Queen a slight embrace. Not to invade but sometimes a hand shake just does not do. Of course it is said that shaking the hand of the Dali Lama is like shaking the soul of the universe.
Does not everyone want to see a movie starlet walk down the red carpet at the Oscars? Of course, you would be the expert on that. I have no idea what the general public wants sometimes. They seem to like to judge more than complement. Maybe it is some deep seeded envy, probably so. I personally like to hear what one has to say and how they say it. I pay attention to what they wear and how they carry themselves when they are doing it. I guess I look at the total package and say does this fit? But I am always mindful of the fact that they are in a very trying situation and I give them credit for being there.
I do like the new look to the website!
Interesting, I just did a search on the web for the duties of the first lady and happened upon the wikipedia entry (they seem to have entries for everything it seems). Nice read.
The problem I see: there are no official duties for the first lady. It is widely expected of her to represent and just “be there” (even as a substitute for the president himself). So, what are the media supposed to report about the actual work of the first lady? Would the public actually care, if they were shown countless visits of orphanages, schools or banquets? Bill is probably right that the media trained its audience to expect certain things and then only deliver those.
I wonder what the media would be reporting, if Mrs. Clinton would have gotten the job as president and her husband acted as first gentleman.
To be honest, I think the media is so obsessed with Michelle Obama exactly because she is such an interesting woman. I don’t remember the same fuss ever being made about Hilary Clinton (before the scandals anyway) and Laura Bush when their respective husbands were in office. There was a brief furore about Carla Bruni when she got married to Sarkozy but that quickly died down.
I agree that Michelle is an intelligent woman and that she has a lot more to offer than fashion tips. So much so, it saddens me that she is not a world leader herself.
However, in my view, it is also important that the spouse (be it husband or wife) of an individual who is in power is not given the same type of coverage in the media. Given the ability of the “idiot media” (I agree with your statement on this) to twist and warp anything that is said in an interview, it would always be easy to compromise or overshadow a world leader’s political position with “scandalous” remarks. A classic example is the Queen’s husband, Philip the Duke of Edinburgh. His repeated gaffes and the media spin put on them along the years together with a multitude more from other members of the family) have seriously damaged the remaining symbolic power the queen and the royal family hold in England.
Also, take Angela Merkel for instance. With her being the first woman Chancellor of Germany and also ex-Chairwoman of the Christian Democratic Union, she is considered by Forbes Magazine as the most powerful woman in the world. Her husband is a
quantum chemist which probably means his intelligence is well above the norm and he would surely have something interesting to say. But who would listen to him anyway?
The world in its current state of affairs is already having issues trusting its own leaders let alone having enough interest to listen to what their spouses’ opinions are.
I agree with Bill on the new look of the site. Very nice.
Michelle Obama is married to the president. I don’t know how that makes her interesting. If she was not a relatively attractive woman (actually in most pictures she looks annoyed) and a bit younger than recent first ladies, would the press even consider giving her as much ink.
As far as an embodiment of wisdom and grace, I don’t know how you get wisdom from the pictures. Grace perhaps, but not wisdom.
The real problem might very well be that what Michelle Obama’s intellect represents to many Americans (and, I must say sadly, many Canadians, too) constitutes a threat to the Ozzie Nelson, father-knows-best, family-values kind of world that those people are so comfortable with. And never mind she’s black! This is the blowback of the so-called ‘moral majority’.
Would it be any different if SHE were the President? Probably not at the present time, and here’s why.
About fifteen years ago, there was a federal election in Canada, and two of the party leaders (including the Prime Minister, no less) were women. Both Kim Campbell and Audrey McLachlain had university degrees and both were considered within their inner circles to be very intelligent. What did the media spend at least a quarter of their time talking about when referring to these two women leaders? Their clothes! Any reference to their skills as potential Prime Ministers (Cambell had just won her party’s leadership race) centered on whether they were ‘strong enough’ to make tough decisions. Argh!
What happened to these two women? Audrey McLauchlain got involved with Socialist international (by the way, I voted for her), And kim Campbell got appointed as Canada’s Counsel-General in Los Angeles. She might still be there. Call up the Consulate while you’re in L.A. and ask her over for coffee. She’ll probably have some good advice for Michelle Obama.
Movie starlets have brains, too, don’t they?
Back in the 1960s and 70s, many feminists explicitly repudiated the goal of conforming to society’s notions of female beauty and attractiveness, arguing that the emphasis on physical beauty prevented their full humanity from being valued and appreciated. Some of the more militant among them wore overalls as their daily attire and made the refusal to shave their legs or armpits a badge of honour. For this, they attracted scorn and derision; they became the stereotypes of all that men loathed about feminism and feminists — and all that women should avoid if they wanted the favour of men. Nevertheless, for a brief time, the notion that the ideal of female beauty was oppressive to women had surprisingly wide currency, at least in progressive circles.
It didn’t last long. Some time around 1980 people started referring to “lipstick feminists” — women who favoured equal rights, but thought it was OK to make an effort to be physically attractive to men in traditional ways. Before long, the overall-wearing crowd was pretty much routed. If a woman could forge a path in a traditionally male area, and combine this with physical attractiveness, then she became a poster woman of modern feminism, providing the much sought-after proof that successful women don’t need to be unattractive.
However, while they may seem to have been on the wrong side of history, the overall-wearing women were basically right. It is a striking feature of the modern era of “equal rights” how much more emotion, money, time and effort women put into their physical appearance than do men. This both reflects and reinforces a societal attitude that women, far more than men, are valued for their decorative function, with a corresponding under-valuing of their other attributes and achievements. The obsession with Michelle Obama’s clothing choices is merely the tip of a much larger cultural iceberg of obsession with female appearance, an obsession that both men and women collaborate in perpetuating. This collaboration is completely understandable; the appeal to both sides is all too obvious. Nevertheless, for as long as the fashion industry, diet industry, cosmetic surgery industry and other appearance-related industries do a thriving business based on a largely female clientele, women in public life are never going to be judged by the same standards as men.
What such a great entry. Unfortunately the media tends to draw it’s attention to silly details like clothes or if you touch the Queen instead of more important things that happened in the encounter. Sad
I totally agree with you. It seems that our society hasn’t realised (yet) what women can do.
Of course, she’s not as powerful as his husband but…anyway, she’got some kind of power and i’m sure she’s going do to great things, not only in America but around the world.
And if she does those things in the right way i’m sure the world would recognise her not only for her behaviour or her clothes.
How is she considered ‘historic’? Last time I counted, there have been many female first ladies. All of them in fact. Let’s wait until Bill is first man before we start bandying around terms like historic.
There are thousands of women (and men) with better qualifications than Michelle Obama to express useful opinions on just about anything. She seems to be a nice lady who came from a good family, got a good education, and married a successful man. There are thousands of women like that. She is no oracle of wisdom, and has accomplished nothing that is extraordinary.
I wish her well, but find the media’s efforts to portray her as some sort of goddess quite nauseating.
It was perfectly right and proper for Michelle to touch the Queen. If the Queen doesn’t want to be touched, she should not touch anyone else.
Thank you for saying what so many are feeling. You are absolutely correct.
I saw an article about the women in Obama’s administration. And did they talk about education, accomplishments, policy? No. The article was about them having short hair. And I did puke all over my computer.
How about not judging people by their physical characteristics, age, sex, ethnicity, but by the content of their character. Is someone so insecure in their own shoes, ideas, and beliefs, that the only way they can feel good about something, is to put others down. Argh!
It always amazes me, in the freest of free countries, how we judge and pigeon-hole people. What a colossal waste of precious time.
Cher, Tina Turner, Patty LaBelle were awesome in the 70′s (and still are). These folks were authentic and we loved it. What happened to us? Today, everybody looks like a manufactured carbon copy. It’s boring and uninspiring. I hate to say it, but Hollywood and Corporate music, has done a lot to bring us to this point.
She stated when her husband was running for office that her only role in the White House would be to a mother to their two children. While I could also care less about her arms, her dresses, and if she’s touching the Queen or not, she didn’t want to be anything more than the First Housewife. She didn’t bill herself as an intellectual or as a potential adviser to her husband during the election. We should be frustrated with her putting herself in that role, more so than the media acquiescing to that request.
This reminds me of the news buzz around both Hillary during the primaries and Palin during the election. The media couldn’t stop talking about Hillary’s power suits and that she looked too tough. And then ragged on her when she got ‘emotional’ in New Hampshire. Similarly, when Palin was announced as McCain’s VP, it was all about the ‘sexy librarian’ and how expense her clothes were (with the GOP paying for it!)
I remember reading a NYT op-ed during that time about the media obsession with women’s looks. How not to lament over how expensive Palin’s clothes were because she knew all too well how important it is to look good on air (maybe this op-ed was written by Campbell Brown, but I can’t remember atm). She talked of getting emails if she wore the wrong makeup or her outfit clashed.
Unfortunately, there is this association between success and attractiveness in our society, especially for women, and the media continues to feed this association by focusing on fashion, make-up, and hair styles of women in power. I’m not sure how to change this part of our society, but maybe if the men in power treated the women of power as equals (ahem, instead of giving them back rubs during meetings), then maybe the rest of society will follow suit.
Betraying my age here – what does “You know my Steez” mean?
It is the title of a Gangstarr song.
Incidentally, Michelle Obama made last week’s edition of Time (the Canadian version, anyway). The interview covered a lot of ground in only a few pages, but I guess that’s what happens when you are suddenly a hot property and everyone wants to know everything about you. And yes, the article gave a fair amount of attention to her ‘fashion sense’, too.
Oh, well, it’s a start, I guess.
Michelle Obama has a blog. I just gave a quick look at it but it does not seem like she actually posts directly. Moreover the most recent (you tube) add in her blog is dated January 2008.
If Mohammed will not go to the mountain, the mountain must come to Mohammed ! If the media do give her space and she would really be desperate to express her thoughts she could use her blog as a start. Same as Julia is doing with hers.
Thanks for that.
By the way: the French first lady (originally Italian citizen) is now giving an example with http://www.carlabrunisarkozy.org/